Ragin Cajun
New member
********** ALERT *******
I just got off the phone with one of the sponsors of this bill. He was not happy with the way the bill APPEARS. But the NET result of the bill is also repealing another part of the Code (Section 16-23-20) that caused the need for CWP's.
The purpose of this bill is to make SC like Vermont where CWP are NOT NEEDED to carry concealed.
In spite of the way the bill looks on the surface, it is GOOD! ! !
Sorry about the confusion, but this threw lots of us.
We have a good one here!
[This message has been edited by Ragin Cajun (edited May 02, 2000).]
I just got off the phone with one of the sponsors of this bill. He was not happy with the way the bill APPEARS. But the NET result of the bill is also repealing another part of the Code (Section 16-23-20) that caused the need for CWP's.
The purpose of this bill is to make SC like Vermont where CWP are NOT NEEDED to carry concealed.
In spite of the way the bill looks on the surface, it is GOOD! ! !
Sorry about the confusion, but this threw lots of us.
We have a good one here!
[This message has been edited by Ragin Cajun (edited May 02, 2000).]
